What was once explicitly taught and instilled often only needs implicit, suggestive support to perpetuate.
If I tell my daughter a hundred times, “Daddy loves ice cream!”, and then every week after I say, “Let’s go to Leatherby’s and get Rocky Road”, she will reasonably understand that as a continuation and extension of my original statement.
If I tell my son a hundred times, “Mommy loves breakfast in bed on Saturday mornings, and I love doing it for her”, and then later say on a Saturday morning, “Let’s go cook some eggs for her”, he will understand the latter in light of the former.
But if I later said to Lydia, “Daddy doesn’t love ice cream, he likes to get out of the house”, or to John Caleb, “I only cook breakfast for her to appease her petty desires” (not true, of course), they can reasonably respond, “Even though you weren’t explicitly repeating your original statements, we had every good reason to believe you still believed them, and were operating on those beliefs.” But why?
What was once taught by explication often only needs to be perpetuated by implication.
What was once in your hands is often later simply in your pocket.
What was once bluntly stated need only later be euphemized.
What was once admitted need only later be suggested.
This is largely how Mormon theology perpetuates. Mormon tradition is a powerful vehicle with tremendous momentum.
This is why prior statements by LDS leaders must be explicitly renounced.
This is why real repentance in persons of influence in Mormonism requires confession and repudiation.
If you love the truth, if you love the Mormon people, if you love the next generation, do not settle for plausible deniability and “shifts in emphasis.”